Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post
    Quote:It is her opinion a long instrument was used while Julia was somewhere at or near the chair with the assailant in front of the fireplace. unquote..
    Possibly a number 7 iron golf club? Anyone know if William was partial to 9 holes of a Sunday morning?
    They can't give that kind of specificity that's usually why at court they are asked "could an instrument such as this" (item shown) cause the injuries you saw, when they don't have a murder weapon.

    Something like a fireplace poker or iron bar, as opposed to say, a spanner.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    There is evidence there was no desperation for a time alibi which we can almost prove by the neglect of mentioning Alan Close who did not even immediately come forward. Remember without Alan he could have killed his wife at any time from 6.05 PM until he left, as opposed to 6.35 or whatever it is. To make no mention of it shows he does not care or was not even aware Alan had ever arrived at all.

    6.05 PM is worse for him than even 6.30 PM if he's hoping to be exonerated by timing alone. Clearly his alibi in his mind is not one reliant on timings which seem too tight. I think that has to be accepted...
    Hi WWH,

    I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Wallace was planning to use the milk boy to help provide an alibi. He had no idea if the lad would deliver early, late or at his usual time. But there is no point in saying what Wallace could have done 'without Alan'. If Wallace killed his wife, he had to factor in the milk delivery or risk being interrupted.

    But... once he had managed to do the deed and leave the house, without anyone knocking at the door expecting to see Julia, he could afford to breathe a sigh of relief that Alan was no longer a potential spanner in the works. The lad had been and gone without suspecting a thing, so Wallace could forget him and concentrate on his next moves. As I keep saying, he was no good to Wallace as an alibi, because he was clearly not the last person to see Julia alive. Wallace was still in the house with her and he'd have struck when Alan was gone. After that it was just a case of hoping there would be no way to pin down his wife's time of death, beyond reasonable doubt, to between 6 and 6.45! And that was Wallace's Get Out of Jail Free card - nothing whatsoever to do with the milk.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Quote:It is her opinion a long instrument was used while Julia was somewhere at or near the chair with the assailant in front of the fireplace. unquote..
    Possibly a number 7 iron golf club? Anyone know if William was partial to 9 holes of a Sunday morning?

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post
    I’ll tell you what I believe the Johnsons heard from the Wallace’s house .Nothing ,absolutely Zilch.

    Next door neighbours in these types of dwellings tolerate what I believe is known as white noise.

    there are ongoing sounds from through the walls ,more of a muffly noise really, which is completely

    taken on board , and hardly ever alluded to , except perhaps where a major shouting match is in

    progress. To which annoyance the answer would be a good bang on the wall ,with a loud ‘ will you

    keep it down please’ , which 9 times out of 10 did the trick.As you can probably perceive, I have

    first hand knowledge. Forget about trying to tie in Julia’s murder with anyone hearing anything

    next door unless we’re talking screaming.
    I live in semi-detached terraced housing. We would hear iron bars bashing things into the ground. We hear when they, for example, are hammering on the OPPOSITE wall doing DIY work (not the one that separates our homes) because it causes a vibration. And then it's like that vibration "sound" that you can't block out no matter how loud you play your music or white noise.

    I thought these people were able to hear if anyone had gone to the Wallace's door with their supersonic selective hearing? And conversation with Amy taking place through the wall because the dividing party wall was so thin? But of course a wacking of a wife is silent unless the statement was given as 6.45 when the sound occurred in which case it would of course be accepted.

    I'm also sure if the forensics I hired said the jacket was definitely used as a shield and the assailant wore it (which I would not have hidden or deluded myself into believing is BS) that too would then be amazing and true discoveries.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-11-2020, 01:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post
    I might be wrong but I believe the neighbours heard a thud from the parlour ,and believed it to be the old Dad dropping his boots to the floor prior to donning his house slippers . Now are we to believe that these people make a mental note of what time Dad drops his boots every night ? Ridiculous in the extreme!
    Well considering people take every other time that suits them as flawless evidence... I'm sure if they heard 10 thuds that they thought was someone coming down the stairs in heavy boots at 6.45 it would be determined to be gospel.

    I don't expect at all they would know the exact time of "boots being taken off". But I think they would probably know whether the sound happened before or after 19.00 at least.

    The time here may be REASONABLY close because they went out of their home only 15 minutes later, so they have some kind of reference to work with, with the fixed time for definite as 8.45 (when they left their house).

    If she's off by 30 minutes I would not at all be surprised. Beattie was off by like 20 minutes in regards to when the call came in. That's normal in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    I’ll tell you what I believe the Johnsons heard from the Wallace’s house .Nothing ,absolutely Zilch.

    Next door neighbours in these types of dwellings tolerate what I believe is known as white noise.

    There are ongoing sounds from through the walls ,more of a muffly noise really, which is completely

    taken on board by persons choosing to live in these types of dwellings, and hardly ever alluded to , except perhaps where a major shouting match is in

    progress, to which annoyance the answer would be a good bang on the wall ,with a loud ‘WILL YOU KEEP IT DOWN PLEASE’, which 9 times out of 10 did the trick.As you can probably perceive, I have

    first hand knowledge. Forget about trying to tie in Julia’s murder with anyone hearing anything next door, unless we’re talking SCREAMING.
    Last edited by moste; 03-11-2020, 01:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    I might be wrong but I believe the neighbours heard a thud from the parlour ,and believed it to be the old Dad dropping his boots to the floor prior to donning his house slippers . Now are we to believe that these people make a mental note of what time Dad drops his boots every night ? Ridiculous in the extreme!

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post
    The outcome of the method of the murder for me speaks volumes . Anyone,and I mean anyone would have protected themselves against the terrible mess. A paid killer for example would simply have swatted her to the floor then ( if this was to be the weapon of his choice ) thrown something ,anything, over her head to do the bludgeoning. An unknown burglar, would simply have smacked her to the ground ,and only if she was barring his way out, or trying to stop his egress .A burglar known to Julia, well, extremely unlikely that they would be violent,more likely to ask for forgiveness and in a river of tears,( genuine or otherwise) plead with her not to tell any one. I’ve said this before, but the person who created such open carnage, luxuriated in the terrible blood bath .This tells us ,far from being any kind of a spur of the moment thing , this was a crime of passion of immense proportions. Surely it’s obvious, we are dealing here with someone with many axes to grind.
    I think along with a forensic expert, a good acquisition would be a top notch Crime Profiler WWH.
    P.S. good post Caz. ( having shared the A6 thread, never thought I’d have heard myself say that.LOL)
    I can get a profiler.

    The forensic expert does not agree there were 11 blows. She says simply multiple. She thinks 11 is a very weak suggestion along with the actual use of the jacket by the killer as a shield. McFall initially said something like 3 or 4 strikes.

    Essentially she agrees with McFall's positioning and the other expert's (I forget which, the defence brought them in) opinion regarding the jacket. And Roland Oliver/Florence Johnston's idea about the jacket.

    I quoted the reports I received maybe a couple of pages back.

    The time of death estimate is not massively helpful because the range is so wide due to the techniques used at the time.

    It is her opinion a long instrument was used while Julia was somewhere at or near the chair with the assailant in front of the fireplace (more to the right than Julia I think? But I didn't clarify the X vs Y axis).

    The crime of passion idea is unsupported and quite prejudicial in fact. The idea is supported by only the 11 blows which McFall himself only said much later despite examining the body and coming up with 3 or 4. Even then I can show similar attacks in home invasions etc. Some people are really, really not pleasant at all.

    3 or 4 makes sense if it's in line with the thumping heard by the Johnstons. The first strike should not make a tonne of noise because it's a strike through the air. The ones that will be most likely to be heard will be the strikes that hit the head against the floor, as you can probably imagine if someone is striking down with a heavy instrument against a semi-hard object like a skull onto the floor... I mean if you basebal batted someone in the head there will be a very obvious THWACK I'd imagine, but whether the sound would travel as far I'm not sure... Florence also said it sounded like boots being taken off. Boots would be plonked down on the floor, it would be harder to mistake the basebal bat type wack with plods against the floor.

    They may have heard the two follow-up strikes. I did hear the suggestion from Gannon the jacket was there as a sound muffler.

    It makes more sense in general too, as you would expect a "frenzy" with 11 or 12 strikes to be much more audibly obvious if those strikes are all raining down on the back of the head against the floor. A man relying on escaping free of any particle of blood would also be wise to not rain down 11 blows.

    Especially if emotion has taken over how are you expecting such a clean and silent kill? Because frenzy is implying, like, wild man tier wacking.

    All single person theories in this case are weak or even can be essentially disproven like Rod's idea which is SO similar to my own just that he has one person in there. Which makes much less sense unless Julia knew the person because I don't know that a stranger robbing her house would cause her to go into the parlour and sit down.

    She's not going to be mute while he drags her in there nor would he bother to do this? So the idea she retreated into the parlour is actually stronger than the one in Antony's book.

    So it is quite amusing really, that the least likely idea that is essentially not even possible, is basically identical to the one I think is correct.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-10-2020, 08:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post
    No, that would be to the left of the fireplace not in front,. I think you said the assailant was in front of the fireplace.
    The fireplace is in the center of the room. The assailant is in front of the fireplace. Julia is to his left closer to the armchair.

    She could not place Julia exactly because of the lack of quality photography and some other factors. But Julia is anywhere in the region suggested by McFall in her opinion.

    The marks on the ceiling might be a photo glitch as I've not seen it mentioned in reports or the trial etc, but if not, then the follow up blows she said were done from a position likely over near the chair (the assailant standing there), with the raising of the weapon causing cast-off on the ceiling.

    It is difficult to tell with these photos what's blood and what's a photo glitch etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    I know it’s an attractive idea to have assistance from experts in a case like ‘Who killed Julia Wallace’ . But at the end of the day, we are dealing with mostly supposition ,ie ,where the exact location of the attack was ,which way the head was turned, and so on. But not wanting to rain on the parade, I can’t see that there could be anything missed, that would draw us closer to a solution.Tangible facts like ‘ the killer seemingly being indifferent to the awful mess he was causing,as alluded to previously, and Wallace’s almost relentless search for suitable alibi fodder. To get ahead with regards to possibilities, we need to get to the bottom of where Joseph was throughout all this, with his comings and goings. But I fear ,it being 90 years ago nearly , as with other aspects of the case, no headway is likely to be made.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

    It didn't go over his right shoulder and to the front of the fireplace. She's suggesting the same thing as McFall, that the position is the opposite way round in terms of Julia and the assailant.

    It might be helpful if I get the forensic professional who suggested that positioning to draw on the blueprint where she thinks Julia and the assailant may have been when the first strike landed. She has worked live homicide cases with multiple police forces, I figured it would be helpful to get actual answers about the jacket etc. from people qualified to speak on the matter with far more modern training.
    No, that would be to the left of the fireplace not in front,. I think you said the assailant was in front of the fireplace.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    The outcome of the method of the murder for me speaks volumes . Anyone,and I mean anyone would have protected themselves against the terrible mess. A paid killer for example would simply have swatted her to the floor then ( if this was to be the weapon of his choice ) thrown something ,anything, over her head to do the bludgeoning. An unknown burglar, would simply have smacked her to the ground ,and only if she was barring his way out, or trying to stop his egress .A burglar known to Julia, well, extremely unlikely that they would be violent,more likely to ask for forgiveness and in a river of tears,( genuine or otherwise) plead with her not to tell any one. I’ve said this before, but the person who created such open carnage, luxuriated in the terrible blood bath .This tells us ,far from being any kind of a spur of the moment thing , this was a crime of passion of immense proportions. Surely it’s obvious, we are dealing here with someone with many axes to grind.
    I think along with a forensic expert, a good acquisition would be a top notch Crime Profiler WWH.
    P.S. good post Caz. ( having shared the A6 thread, never thought I’d have heard myself say that.LOL)

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    If the assailant was in front of the fire place how did blood spray up the wall to a height of seven feet over his right shoulder and to the left of the fireplace ,pray tell.
    It didn't go over his right shoulder and to the front of the fireplace. She's suggesting the same thing as McFall, that the position is the opposite way round in terms of Julia and the assailant.

    It might be helpful if I get the forensic professional who suggested that positioning to draw on the blueprint where she thinks Julia and the assailant may have been when the first strike landed. She has worked live homicide cases with multiple police forces, I figured it would be helpful to get actual answers about the jacket etc. from people qualified to speak on the matter with far more modern training.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

    You will find most people have Alan featuring as part of chess grandmaster William's plan to make it seem like he couldn't have done it.

    I think you agree the idea is silly, which it is.

    I hired professional forensic scientists to review the notes, they are saying the eleven blows is tenuous (though they would be happy to say multiple) and that they strongly doubt that the assailant shielded himself with the jacket, and also that even if he did, there would still be blood on his clothing due to a high amount of blowback splatter in this type of attack (e.g. spurts that travel up inside the sleeves, on his ankles for sure) and if he had knelt down beside the body, different stain patterning on the jacket that would have been very obvious if this was done.

    They reviewed all forensic notes and testimony on the trial, as well as the post-mortem and crime scene photos.

    They agree with Julia being in about the position McFall had stated, and agree with the subsequent blows happening on the back of the skull, with the head now already roughly in its final resting spot. They have the assailant in front of the fireplace as the most likely position.
    If the assailant was in front of the fire place how did blood spray up the wall to a height of seven feet over his right shoulder and to the left of the fireplace ,pray tell.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I really think you are missing the point here, WWH, when you keep referring to this 'alibi clock'. All a guilty Wallace would have been thinking about was the latest time he could afford to leave the house, considering the bogus appointment time was 7.30 at an address he claimed not to know. He had to wait for Close to deliver the milk and then judge if there was still time to do the crime and leave the house at a reasonable time for that appointment. That's all. That's the only reason for Close to feature in the story. He was a potential obstacle, and not under Wallace's control. Had Wallace been unable to leave the house until gone seven, for instance, everyone would have been much more suspicious than they were. Wallace knew he had to abandon his plan or get cracking and get out of that house as soon as he could. So the fact that he did have enough time [always assuming he did the deed] means that the milk boy could not have provided him with an alibi, even if he had thought to mention him. It merely turned out to be a bonus that he'd had to rush things so much that doubt was thrown on whether it was possible. He didn't plan it that way. How could he?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    You will find most people have Alan featuring as part of chess grandmaster William's plan to make it seem like he couldn't have done it.

    I think you agree the idea is silly, which it is.

    I hired professional forensic scientists to review the notes, they are saying the eleven blows is tenuous (though they would be happy to say multiple) and that they strongly doubt that the assailant shielded himself with the jacket, and also that even if he did, there would still be blood on his clothing due to a high amount of blowback splatter in this type of attack (e.g. spurts that travel up inside the sleeves, on his ankles for sure) and if he had knelt down beside the body, different stain patterning on the jacket that would have been very obvious if this was done.

    They reviewed all forensic notes and testimony on the trial, as well as the post-mortem and crime scene photos.

    They agree with Julia being in about the position McFall had stated, and agree with the subsequent blows happening on the back of the skull, with the head now already roughly in its final resting spot. They have the assailant in front of the fireplace as the most likely position.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X